Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brit nuclear reactor planned for Ireland?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    This is what happened in a Korean Nuclear power station back in '97
    http://www.nti.org/facilities/6/
    Since entering commercial operations, Ulchin-1 shut down several times due to technical malfunctions. The first incident occurred one month after Ulchin-1 began commercial operations, when a short-circuit in the generator caused the reactor to be temporarily shut down. [6] In 1997 and 2001, Ulchin-1 and -2 were temporarily shut down several times due to swarms of shrimp and jellyfish clogging the inflow of water into the generators.

    But it's OK because the nuclear industry learns from it's mistakes so it shouldn't happen again.

    Except since then jellyfish have also taken out Nuclear power plants in
    Japan http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-japan-nuclear-jellyfish-idUSTRE75N0Z520110624
    Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13971005
    Florida http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/jellyfish-swarm-shuts-down-st-lucie-nuclear-power-/nL2Hc/
    California http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/27/11432974-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-in-california-knocked-offline-by-jellyfish-like-creature-called-salp?lite
    Israel http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43673597/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/jellyfish-invasions-force-shutdowns-separate-nuclear-plants/
    South Africa http://scienceinafrica.com/wildlife/rise-jellyfish-joyride


  • Options
    #33
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Technoprisoner wrote: »
    have a read of this and tell me that you still want a nuclear power plant on this island and the it is totally safe to do so http://now.msn.com/fukushima-vegetables-mutated-in-viral-photos-possibly-due-to-radiation
    Technoprisoner wrote: »
    well then does this make you feel nuclear power is safe? http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/lost-world-fukushima/5102

    or maybe this will convince you

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818
    [mod] Posting a bunch of links does not an interesting discussion make.

    Links should be provided in support of arguments, not posted as arguments in and of themselves.[/mod]


  • Options
    #34
    Technoprisoner
    Registered Users Posts: 1,309 ✭✭✭Technoprisoner


    the first post was to get a discussion going about the safety of nuclear power plants and provided a discussion point. the second post was to provide evidence of the effects nuclear melt downs have on an environment and society. We are approaching the anniversary of fukushima and no better time to discuss safety issues that a nuclear power plant in ireland than now. Because a webiste is korean does not mean that it is not credible or non factual hence posting links to bbc and channel 4.


  • Options
    #35
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Technoprisoner wrote: »
    Because a webiste is korean does not mean that it is not credible or non factual

    Completely agree but it was just some random image hosting site. If it was a credible new site that would be fine but you basically linked to the Korean version of imgur.


  • Options
    #36
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    This is what happened in a Korean Nuclear power station back in '97
    http://www.nti.org/facilities/6/

    But it's OK because the nuclear industry learns from it's mistakes so it shouldn't happen again.

    Except since then jellyfish have also taken out Nuclear power plants in
    Japan http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-japan-nuclear-jellyfish-idUSTRE75N0Z520110624
    Scotland http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13971005
    Florida http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/jellyfish-swarm-shuts-down-st-lucie-nuclear-power-/nL2Hc/
    California http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/27/11432974-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-in-california-knocked-offline-by-jellyfish-like-creature-called-salp?lite
    Israel http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43673597/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/jellyfish-invasions-force-shutdowns-separate-nuclear-plants/
    South Africa http://scienceinafrica.com/wildlife/rise-jellyfish-joyride
    You can now add Sweden to the list of places where jellyfish have taken a nuclear plant offline.


    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/jellyfish-shut-down-nuclear-plant-29625385.html
    Operators of the Oskarshamn nuclear plant in Sweden had to close reactor number three after tons of jellyfish clogged the pipes that bring in cool water to the plant's turbine


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    djpbarry wrote: »
    First of all, I’m not advocating a nuclear power plant for (Northern) Ireland – whatever about safety, I’ve never been convinced by the economic argument.

    Secondly, it’s very unlikely that, were such a project given the go-ahead, that the firms involved in the construction would be Irish.

    Finally, I really hate this idea that Ireland is somehow light-years behind everyone else in the world in terms of technical know-how – it’s complete nonsense.

    I don't know what a tracker mortgage is ?:pac:

    There is a big difference between technical know-how and practical experience we have plenty of technical know-how building to plans etc, but practical experience of nuclear technology in Ireland is limited at best.
    The firms managing and designing any project would undoubtedly be from overseas, but the subcontractors and labor force would largely be local, except for some very specialized installation and commissioning work.

    Ireland produces some fantastic graduates in a wide range of technical fields, and at present they are scattered to the four corners of the world gaining valuable experience in their industries, so I agree. we're a nation of spud farmers no more


  • Options
    #38
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    I don't know what a tracker mortgage is ?:pac:

    There is a big difference between technical know-how and practical experience we have plenty of technical know-how building to plans etc, but practical experience of nuclear technology in Ireland is limited at best.
    The firms managing and designing any project would undoubtedly be from overseas, but the subcontractors and labor force would largely be local, except for some very specialized installation and commissioning work.

    Ireland produces some fantastic graduates in a wide range of technical fields, and at present they are scattered to the four corners of the world gaining valuable experience in their industries, so I agree. we're a nation of spud farmers no more

    Even the UK with it's much superior manufacturing industry than ours is likely to miss out on a lot of the contract work if the UK nuclear projects go ahead.

    Irish industry would gain even less.


  • Options
    #39
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24561325
    The Chancellor, George Osborne, has announced that the UK will allow Chinese companies to take a stake in British nuclear power plants.

    ...
    China has 17 nuclear reactors in operation, which provide about 1% of its electricity production capacity.


    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/14/british-hinkley-nuclear-contracts-edf
    UK companies are set to miss out on the majority of specialist contracts to build the £14bn nuclear power station at Hinkley in Somerset because of a dearth of hi-tech engineering skills in the country, according to the plant's state-backed French developer, EDF Energy.
    ...
    Contracts for what he described as "muck shifting" have already gone to UK companies which are set to prepare the site, but contracts for hi-tech engineering, civil engineering, marine engineering and various support services are at the preferred bidder stage or yet to be tendered.
    ...
    "There are 90 contracts to deliver the job, excluding the muck shifting and enabling work. Two – marine works and civils – are traditional UK [strengths]. The other 88, that's the world of manufacturing and erection,"

    Ignore any BS about running out of power in 2015 , this plant won't be ready for at least a decade after that.

    And they still haven't agreed a strike price.


  • Options
    #40
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    You can now add Sweden to the list of places where jellyfish have taken a nuclear plant offline.


    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/jellyfish-shut-down-nuclear-plant-29625385.html
    Wow, a power plant suffers downtime. You got the scoop of the century! :D
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    And they still haven't agreed a strike price.
    Any strike price that is eventually agreed will almost certainly make more sense than -€100. That's right, minus 100 Euro per MW/h.

    That was the market price recorded on the 16th of June in Germany.
    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fpe%2Fhowtolosehalfatrillioneuros

    They've gone down the road that would no doubt be popular in this forum, spending billions on wind and solar, and as a consequence of that, not only are German electricity prices twice what they should be (because there are FOUR THOUSAND different subsidy schemes to prop up renewables, all paid for by domestic and small business customers) but the grid, and the electricity prices are frighteningly unstable, because the whole thing is literally as dependable as the weather.

    I think I can state without fear of contradiction that nuclear power is more reliable than that, invasion of the jellyfish or otherwise. :)


  • Options
    #41
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fpe%2Fhowtolosehalfatrillioneuros


    20131012_FBC536.png
    Electricity prices have fallen from over €80 per MWh at peak hours in Germany in 2008 to just €38 per MWh now (see chart 2). (These are wholesale prices; residential prices are €285 per MWh, some of the highest in the world, partly because they include subsidies for renewables that are one-and-a-half times, per unit of energy, the power price itself).

    ...
    Companies made all their money during peak periods. But the middle of the day is when solar generation is strongest. Thanks to grid priority, solar grabs a big chunk of that peak demand and has competed away the price spike. In Germany in 2008, according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, peak-hour prices were €14 per MWh above baseload prices. In the first six months of 2013, the premium was €3. So not only have average electricity prices fallen by half since 2008, but the peak premium has also fallen by almost four-fifths. No wonder utilities are in such a mess.

    EDF are still haggling for £100 per MWh for the next 30 years. Please explain how nuclear can compete in a market where prices have halved in 5 years to €38 per MWhr ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    EDF are still haggling for £100 per MWh for the next 30 years. Please explain how nuclear can compete in a market where prices have halved in 5 years to €38 per MWhr ?
    Make that 35 years and index-linked. That's a direct operational aid subsidy that a renewable energy producer would never ask for. PV is being built in some countries in the EU with no subsidies at all.

    And that doesn't include all the indirect subsidies nuclear enjoys. The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority says the final cost of closing down the last set of UK nuclear plants could top £100bn.

    And in case you missed it, the German Energy Commissioner was caught deleting figures on energy subsidies last week. The figures showed that in 2011, nuclear received €35bn, renewables received €30bn and fossil fuels €26bn (but add on an extra €40bn in health and social costs).

    That tells us that despite decades of state support and direct and indirect subsidies, nuclear and fossil fuels still to this day receive more subsidies than renewables. The point of a subsidy is to make a technology cheaper. That has happened with renewables but it hasn't happened with fossil fuels (because most of the money goes directly into paying for fuel, not improving the technology) and it definitely hasn't happened with nuclear, which gets more expensive every year.


  • Options
    #43
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    In my opinion, much of this debate is missing the point altogether.

    If we don't stop using fossil fuels immediately, we are looking at climate collapse, the effects of which will be catastrophic beyond our powers of comprehension. (It may actually already be too late, but we should proceed as if it wasn't.)

    Renewables will be a very important part of the solution, if it is to be found (as well as increased energy efficiency, obviously), but it is just not realistic to think that they can replace the enormous - and constantly increasing - energy demands currently fulfilled by fossil fuels, either in terms of scale, or capacity to provide baseload power (i.e. there when you need it, not when then wind blows or the sun shines).

    Nobody is going to accept doing without the energy supplies that make our present society function, not politicians, not big business, and not most (99%+) of the people. Therefore, fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase, with all of the devastation that brings to our climate and the rest of the biosphere. In fact the results are there in front of our eyes: they are now beginning to drill in the Arctic (ironically only made possible by climate collapse itself), as well as increasing exploitation of tar sands, fracking, etc.

    We need to get real and take on board the enormity of the situation we're in. Pretending to ourselves that renewables alone can solve things actually makes our predicament much worse by blinding us to the direction we're going in before it's too late to do anything about it (which may, as I said, already be the case). Imo, those who care about this planet need to consider these things deeply, as this is very, very, real.

    IV generation nuclear power is practically carbon-free, does not produce any radioactive waste to speak of, and in fact can use 'spent' nuclear fuel to generate vast quantities of energy while rendering it non-radioactive at the same time. That is not to say that we shouldn't be very watchful and critical of the nuclear industry who, like other energy industries, have a record of dishonesty, greed and corruption. But in the absence of practical alternatives, nuclear power should be part of the solution.

    Those people, particularly environmentalists, who are completely opposed (as I used to be) to the newer forms of nuclear should look at it from the perspective of the alternative, which is environmental destruction on an almost continental scale, and global climate collapse.

    "With climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened."

    (Variously attributed, but quoted from 'Whole Earth Discipline' by Stewart Brand, of the 60/70s 'Whole Earth Catalogue'.)

    I invite you to please take a look at these two short videos and reflect (Dr. James Hansen is a climate scientist turned activist, who was the first to try to alert the US government to climate change in the 80s):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M


  • Options
    #44
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    In my opinion, much of this debate is missing the point altogether.

    If we don't stop using fossil fuels immediately, we are looking at climate collapse, the effects of which will be catastrophic beyond our powers of comprehension. (It may actually already be too late, but we should proceed as if it wasn't.)

    Renewables will be a very important part of the solution, if it is to be found (as well as increased energy efficiency, obviously), but it is just not realistic to think that they can replace the enormous - and constantly increasing - energy demands currently fulfilled by fossil fuels, either in terms of scale, or capacity to provide baseload power (i.e. there when you need it, not when then wind blows or the sun shines).

    Nobody is going to accept doing without the energy supplies that make our present society function, not politicians, not big business, and not most (99%+) of the people. Therefore, fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase, with all of the devastation that brings to our climate and the rest of the biosphere. In fact the results are there in front of our eyes: they are now beginning to drill in the Arctic (ironically only made possible by climate collapse itself), as well as increasing exploitation of tar sands, fracking, etc.

    We need to get real and take on board the enormity of the situation we're in. Pretending to ourselves that renewables alone can solve things actually makes our predicament much worse by blinding us to the direction we're going in before it's too late to do anything about it (which may, as I said, already be the case). Imo, those who care about this planet need to consider these things deeply, as this is very, very, real.

    IV generation nuclear power is practically carbon-free, does not produce any radioactive waste to speak of, and in fact can use 'spent' nuclear fuel to generate vast quantities of energy while rendering it non-radioactive at the same time. That is not to say that we shouldn't be very watchful and critical of the nuclear industry who, like other energy industries, have a record of dishonesty, greed and corruption. But in the absence of practical alternatives, nuclear power should be part of the solution.

    Those people, particularly environmentalists, who are completely opposed (as I used to be) to the newer forms of nuclear should look at it from the perspective of the alternative, which is environmental destruction on an almost continental scale, and global climate collapse.

    "With climate change, those who know the most are the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who know the most are the least frightened."

    (Variously attributed, but quoted from 'Whole Earth Discipline' by Stewart Brand, of the 60/70s 'Whole Earth Catalogue'.)

    I invite you to please take a look at these two short videos and reflect (Dr. James Hansen is a climate scientist turned activist, who was the first to try to alert the US government to climate change in the 80s):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M

    Hang on, you posted an almost identical post a few months ago and didn't respond to my response. Simply repeating your points without engaging in debate is not interesting at all.

    Edit: [mod] It's actually called soap boxing if I'm not mistaken. Please engage in debate, and don't just repeatedly post your opinions. Oh and because I have to deal with this every.single.time, I'll state preemptively that there's no in-thread discussion of moderation. [/mod]


  • Options
    #45
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    IV generation nuclear power is practically carbon-free, does not produce any radioactive waste to speak of, and in fact can use 'spent' nuclear fuel to generate vast quantities of energy while rendering it non-radioactive at the same time.
    In theory only.

    No one has actually built one yet.


    (you probably don't want to count the problematic Japanese ones)

    And all the spin comes from the same industry has has consistently been economical with the truth in the past. There were problems with all of the pebble bed reactors.

    Yes thorium can work, look up Shipping Port, the problem is that it breeds very slowly - slower the demand for electricity rises or the price of renewables falls.

    It's a physics thing. The Canadians had thorium in the Zeep reactor back in 1947 so the physics of thorium is well understood.

    As for getting breeders working / using spent fuel the Japanese managed to get their fast breeder running for an hour. Total cost including the reprocessing plant is about twice what's being spent on the ITER :eek:

    Don't let anyone fool you.
    Fusion research is expensive.
    The ITER will cost nearly as much as the proposed EDF power plant. Assuming the €13Bn ITER will over run and £14Bn EDF plant won't (and ignoring the EDF lifetime cost of ~ £88Bn depending on strike price and cleanup ) )


    Re Thorium / burner reactor to reduce waste
    It's all about neutron capture ratios, if the neutron is captured by Th232 leading to U233 that's good. U233 capturing a second neutron to fission is good which is what you want.

    But what happens is that you capture two neutrons to end up with U234 (nasty stuff lots of gamma rays) you then need to capture a third neutron to get U235 and then a fourth before the U235 fissions.

    You get one spare neutron from every two fissions. To get those two U235 neutrons you need to capture 8 neutrons from Th232, which means 16 U233 fissions (you can probably see where this is heading). Neutrons are also captured by other waste atoms, shielding, coolant etc.

    After all that you can use any remaining spare neutrons to create a breeder. It can work, but a very slow doubling time.
    The average number of neutrons released by each thermal fission is:

    2.49 for U-233
    2.42 for U-235
    2.87 for Pu-239, and
    2.93 for Pu-241.



    The US government is spending $500 downblending or whatever heir remaining U233 stocks, or you could dig up similar costs for processing of the megatons to megawatts programs to show how costly it is to use extremely high grade 'spent' fuel.


  • Options
    #46
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Macha wrote: »
    Hang on, you posted an almost identical post a few months ago and didn't respond to my response. Simply repeating your points without engaging in debate is not interesting at all.

    Edit: [mod] It's actually called soap boxing if I'm not mistaken. Please engage in debate, and don't just repeatedly post your opinions. Oh and because I have to deal with this every.single.time, I'll state preemptively that there's no in-thread discussion of moderation. [/mod]

    You're right Macha, and I apologise for that.

    It wasn't my intention to avoid replying to your post on the other thread: I was seriously out of action at the time, and then just forgot about it. Nor was it my intention to be a soap-boxer (great expression though!).

    Will reply to your post in the other thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993092) later on today, if I have time, or else over the next few days.


  • Options
    #47
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    In theory only.

    No one has actually built one yet.

    Hello Captain,

    See my reply to you and Macha's posts here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056993092


  • Options
    #48
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    20131012_FBC536.png

    EDF are still haggling for £100 per MWh for the next 30 years. Please explain how nuclear can compete in a market where prices have halved in 5 years to €38 per MWhr ?
    And renewables are so much cheaper? Then you should fly (OK flying is bad for the environment, maybe cycle instead), or run over to Germany and tell all those people on Hartz IV and low ( below Irish minimum) wages that renewables are cheap, cheap, cheap. Because if they geniunely were better than nuclear, German consumer energy bills would be going down, not up.

    There is, I'm sure you will agree, a rather large difference between £100/Mwh and €285/Mwh?

    Granted, part of the difference is caused by the fact that the subsidies necessary are only paid by residential users, meaning that industrial and commercial users are partly subsidised.

    It should also be noted that the £100 figure (if it is the final figure) is an "all in" cost, with no subsidies at all: i.e. the UK policy calls for the cost of construction, decommissioning, and waste fuel disposal. Unlike this, fossil fuels and renewables both have severe external costs that are not factored into the "strike price" but that must be paid indirectly all the same.


  • Options
    #49
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    If we don't stop using fossil fuels immediately, we are looking at climate collapse, the effects of which will be catastrophic beyond our powers of comprehension. (It may actually already be too late, but we should proceed as if it wasn't.)
    Please don't take this the wrong, because I'm not having a go at you but your post does remind me of a key issue. Part of the reason why I no longer believe without qualification that Anthrophogenic(sp?) Climate Change is real is because of the behaviour of those shrieking the loudest about it.

    I remember a couple of weeks ago I was watching one of the English TV channels not long after the Russians arrested that Greenpeace ship, and a rep. from Greenpeace was on shrieking about how we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground or else it's going to be doomsday. Or something. Incidentally, the man spoke with a French accent but appeared to be Middle Eastern or North African, full marks for integration I guess)
    Problem is, if you suggest that nuclear power might be a good drop-in replacement for a fossil fuel fired power plant, you'll get something like this:
    276804.PNG
    Clearly not an attempt to induce an irrational phobia of nuclear power or anything!
    Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

    We keep being told that the ACC is real and that the only "deniers" are conspiracy theorists who believe that it's some kind of environmentalist or left-wing pretext.

    But it appears to me that making people 'live ecologically' is the objective, not actually solving the alleged problem of ACC.


  • Options
    #50
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    SeanW wrote: »
    Please don't take this the wrong, because I'm not having a go at you but your post does remind me of a key issue. Part of the reason why I no longer believe without qualification that Anthrophogenic(sp?) Climate Change is real is because of the behaviour of those shrieking the loudest about it.

    I remember a couple of weeks ago I was watching one of the English TV channels not long after the Russians arrested that Greenpeace ship, and a rep. from Greenpeace was on shrieking about how we have to leave fossil fuels in the ground or else it's going to be doomsday. Or something. Incidentally, the man spoke with a French accent but appeared to be Middle Eastern or North African, full marks for integration I guess)
    Problem is, if you suggest that nuclear power might be a good drop-in replacement for a fossil fuel fired power plant, you'll get something like this:
    276804.PNG
    Clearly not an attempt to induce an irrational phobia of nuclear power or anything!
    Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

    We keep being told that the ACC is real and that the only "deniers" are conspiracy theorists who believe that it's some kind of environmentalist or left-wing pretext.

    But it appears to me that making people 'live ecologically' is the objective, not actually solving the alleged problem of ACC.
    [mod]I don't know where to begin with this post (including nonensical comments about Greenpeace staffs' accents?? wtf?) so I'll just say that there's a thread for the climate change debate and I do not expect to have to deal with posters trying to bring it out of that thread. Once more and there'll be a week's ban in it for you. You should know better.

    And it doesn't seem to be working much but I'll give it a premptive go anyway: no in-thread discussion of moderation.[/mod]


  • Options
    #51
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,776 ✭✭✭SeanW


    [mod]Sorry but post deleted. No in-thread discussion of moderation, even to apologise or whatever! The point is to keep on topic! I need a drink...[/mod]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    SeanW wrote: »
    Please don't take this the wrong, because I'm not having a go at you but your post does remind me of a key issue. Part of the reason why I no longer believe without qualification that Anthrophogenic(sp?) Climate Change is real is because of the behaviour of those shrieking the loudest about it.

    Sorry Sean, but there we part company straight away. Anyone who still doubts that climate change is real and is caused by human activity is in cloud cuckoo land as far as I'm concerned.


  • Options
    #53
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    There is, I'm sure you will agree, a rather large difference between £100/Mwh and €285/Mwh?
    I note you are completely avoiding the wholesale price.
    Granted, part of the difference is caused by the fact that the subsidies necessary are only paid by residential users, meaning that industrial and commercial users are partly subsidised.
    If I had to pay €285/MWh when the wholesale price was €38/MWh I'd be angry. That's a massive subsidy to non-domestic customers.

    It should also be noted that the £100 figure (if it is the final figure) is an "all in" cost, with no subsidies at all: i.e. the UK policy calls for the cost of construction, decommissioning, and waste fuel disposal. Unlike this, fossil fuels and renewables both have severe external costs that are not factored into the "strike price" but that must be paid indirectly all the same.
    LOL
    In the UK even renewables have to contribute to nuclear subsidy.

    I've posted it before. How often do nuclear clean ups come on budget. ( Sellafield is costing £1.5Bn a year - that's the cost of delaying the clean up, not the clean up itself.)


    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/20/nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf
    Michael Fallon, the Conservative energy minister, signalled another review of the green subsidies imposed on energy firms, but Davey said: "It only takes a GCSE in maths to recognise that green subsidies are not pushing up prices. It is a fact that 47 % of energy prices come from wholesale prices and they have risen 50% in five years."


  • Options
    #54
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/20/nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf
    The new reactors, which will cost £14bn, are due to start operating in 2023 if constructed on time and will run for 35 years
    ...
    The deal is thought to provide a 10% return on EDF's investment.

    Looks like it's going ahead with a strike price of £89-£93 per megawatt


  • Options
    #55
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/20/nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf

    Looks like it's going ahead with a strike price of £89-£93 per megawatt

    Bad day for the UK taxpayer. The coalition has been tying itself in knots not to call in a subsidy after they promised not to give nuclear subsidies.

    This doesn't include the huge loan (several billion) the UK government has given the project and I'm unclear as to whether this strike price includes decommissioning or waste disposal (once someone figures out what to do with the stuff of course)

    Oh, not only is the price index-linked to the Consumer Price Index, the price can be revised upwards "in relation to operational and certain other costs"...! I think that phrase covers pretty much every eventuality.

    [mod ]Edit: two posts moved to this thread to keep general discussion vs Hinkley point discussion separate (as far as possible..) [/mod]


  • Options
    #56
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Bloody hell it's already gone up another few Bn :eek:

    It's no longer £12 or £14 Bn it's now £16Bn / €18.8Bn /$26Bn


    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/uk-signs-nuclear-plant-deal-with-france-s-edf-to-build-nuclear-power-station-1.1568610
    The overall costs would be £16 billion (€18.8 billion) in 2012 terms with consumers and taxpayers covering most of the bill. EDF will be guaranteed a price of between £89.50 and £92 per megawatt hour for 35 years, depending on whether it later goes ahead with another plant called Sizewell C that might reduce costs. The British government will guarantee 65 per cent of the upfront cost of the Hinkley Point C reactors.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/britain-nuclear-hinkley-idUSL5N0IB0JL20131021 Routers say £92.5/MWh

    It's two 1,650MW reactors. - €5.7m/MW


  • Options
    #57
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Just a point on the CPI indexation, over the last 35 years, UK annual inflation was 4.7%. If this contract had been signed 35 years ago at £93.5/MWh, today that price would be a whopping £455/MWh!

    Even if we take a lower rate, (for example UK inflation has averaged 2.81% per year since 1989), we end up at £246/MWh by the time the contract expires.

    I find it strange to link an energy contract to inflation because of course energy is one of the key inputs into the economy, and a basic factor in the cost of everything else, and therefore has an impact on inflation. A contract like this one basically removes the ability of energy (or at least the energy under this contract) to contribute to lower inflation rates. Or am I missing something?


  • Options
    #58
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Interesting article on Monbiot's website this morning on the subject, saying that Hinkley Point could have been - should have been - a IV generation fast reactor:

    "To build a plant at Hinkley Point which will still require uranium mining and still produce nuclear waste in 2063 is to commit to 20th-Century technologies through most of the 21st. In 2011 GE Hitachi offered to build a fast reactor to start generating electricity from waste plutonium and (unlike the Hinkley developers) to carry the cost if the project failed."

    He goes on to criticise the cost of the project in terms of of its commissioning costs, future electricity costs (see below), and the lack of a plan for the waste that will be produced (though on the latter, he presumably thinks it can be taken care of in the future by a fast reactor?).

    "Seven years ago, I collected all the available cost estimates for nuclear power. The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggested a penny a kilowatt hour. The Royal Academy of Engineering confidently predicted 2.3p. The British government announced that in 2020 the price would be between 3 and 4p. The New Economics Foundation guessed that it could be anywhere between 3.4 and 8.3p. 8.3 pence was so far beyond what anyone else forecast that I treated it as scarcely credible. It falls a penny short of the price now agreed by the British government."

    http://www.monbiot.com/2013/10/21/fiscal-meltdown/


  • Options
    #59
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,827 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Eoghan Barra wrote: »
    Interesting article on Monbiot's website this morning on the subject, saying that Hinkley Point could have been - should have been - a IV generation fast reactor:
    I don't think Generation IV means what you think it means.

    The changes are incremental. They will run hotter so greater Carnot efficiency. They are bigger so some economies of scale.
    You can easily get more fuel buy spending more resources on isotope separation but that in itself is related to increased mining costs in harder granite type rocks.

    It's like jet aircraft. Today's 737's evolved from the 1957 707. They use lighter plastics, more efficient engines, but it's still the same fuselage section and it still takes about half the take off weight in fuel to cross the Atlantic. If the Americans want to go to the ISS the booster is evolved from a 1957 Soviet ICBM. The modern ones are better than the 1957 versions, but that's true with most things. You have to remember that solar is getting 7% cheaper a year and wind gets ~14% cheaper every time the installed base doubles.

    If you want to make a nuclear reactor you just put a lot of fissile material in one place, it gets hot. The devil is in the detail but the nuclear industry has 70 years looking at it. You can add fertile material to the reactor to get a breeder, but so far the results haven't been great you might double your fuel but no one's gotten remotely close to using 99.7% of uranium or thorium that have been theorised and talked about for the last sixty or seventy years.


    I'll keep saying it, if you can't get a well understood physical process working after fifty, sixty or seventy years and possibly hundreds of billions of dollars investment, then don't expect me to believe you'll get it working perfectly on the very next attempt.

    In fairness I haven't looked into the Russian breeder to see what sort of breeding ratio / breeding time it has. Mainly because the British,US, French and Japanese have each sunk tens of billions into their breeder programs (breeder usually means a lot of reprocessing) with almost nothing apart from an expensive clean up job to show for it.

    And besides even if breeding worked, the timescale to build reactors and the doubling time for the fuel means nuclear isn't going to happen soon.


    I'd be shocked if the UK weren't getting more power annually from solar PV than from this power plant by the time it goes online.


  • Options
    #60
    Eoghan Barra
    Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭Eoghan Barra


    Some of your technical info there is a bit beyond me, Capt'n, but I'll reply as best I can.

    James Hansen writes (Storms of my grandchildren, p199f.) that the concept of fast reactors was first developed in the 40s, and by the mid-60s the feasibility of the concept had been demonstrated at Argonne National Laboratory.

    "Nixon thought that fast reactors would be providing most of our electricity in the 21st century. What happened? Three Mile Island, for one thing. All nuclear power was lumped into one bag, a fearsome one. Substantial "antinuke" sentiment developed. ...nuclear power's contribution to US electricity stopped growing, stabilizing at about 20%, with fossil fuels providing most of the remainder."

    But the programme at Argonne was allowed to continue and made steady progress. In 1994, when scientists were ready to build a demonstration fast reactor power plant, Clinton terminated the programme, almost certainly for political reasons.

    "It was a clean kill: Argonne scientists were told not only to stop the research but also to dismantle the project - and those who had worked on the project were instructed by the DOE to not publicize it."

    Hansen says that when he began to recommend urgent testing of IV gen nuclear power capabilities, he was bombarded with messages from environmentalist and anti-nuke people, who "invariably directed me to one or more of a handful of nuclear experts. Some of the experts were associated with organizations such as the Natural Resources Defence Council, the World Wildlife Fund, or the Union of Concerned Scientists...". (He described the latter as a lobbying organization, calling them 'The Union of Concerned Lobbyists'.)

    He discovered that this small group of 'experts' had "an influence way out of proportion to their numbers" in Congress and "speak in technical detail that snows the listener and who conclude that the US, in effect, should terminate peaceful use of nuclear energy."

    To me it seems clear from this and from what I've read about it elsewhere that the development of a very viable technology, i.e. IV generation nuclear, was sabotaged and has since been repressed, all for no good reason.

    Now this is possibly beside the point, and may just be paranoia on my part, but I recently finished reading an extremely interesting (and disturbing) book about corporate - particularly the fossil fuel industry - involvement in large environmental groups, particularly in the US. (Christine MacDonald's 'Green, Inc.: An Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad'.)

    In the book, MacDonald shows how corporations have corrupted many of the biggest green organisations through large donations in return for 'greenwash'. As a result, these groups effectively campaign against environmental causes, such as curtailing fossil fuel use, meaningful steps to combat climate change, or even habitat destruction.

    Without wanting to sidetrack this thread, more or this here: http://www.thenation.com/article/wrong-kind-green#

    Anyway, to cut a long story short, the NRDC and the WWF that Hansen mentions are two of the worst culprits (of about a half dozen). Are these just coincidences? I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a connection.

    In any event, it seems pretty clear that different interests have combined over decades to prevent IV generation nuclear from becoming a reality, and that there is nothing at all wrong with the actual technology itself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    [mod]Eh, can we keep this on topic and stop accusing environmental organisations whose positions we don't agree with of being the worst of the worst? Naomi Klein may have made it popular lately but it's a very, very boring tangent that these nuclear threads always go down.[/mod]


Advertisement